Melendres 592 | Parties's Status of Negotiations re Consent Decree

8/20/2019 Melendres 592 | Parties's Status of Negotiations re Consent Decree

1/90

Joint Report to the Court Regarding Remedies CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP333 Twin Dolphin DriveSuite 700Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418Telephone: (650) 632-4700Facsimile: (650) 632-4800

Stanley Young ( Pro Hac Vice)[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys for Plaintiffs listed on next page)

SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C.1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105Phoenix, AZ 85014-5540Telephone: (602) 277-7000Facsimile: (602) 277-8663

Timothy J. [email protected] L. Williams [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants (Additional attorneys for Defendants listed on next page)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,

)

)

CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS

)

Plaintiff(s), )

) PARTIES’ JOINT REPORTv. ) REGARDING STATUS OF

) CONSENT DECREEJoseph M. Arpaio, et al., ) NEGOTIATIONS

)

Defendants(s). ))

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 592 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 12


2/90

ii


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Tammy Albarran ( Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] Hults (Pro Hac Vice) [email protected]

Covington & Burling LLP1 Front StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111-5356Telephone: (415) 591-6000Facsimile: (415) 591-6091

Lesli Gallagher ( Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] & Burling LLP9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th FloorSan Diego CA 92122Telephone: (858) 678-1800Facsimile: (858) 678-1600

Dan [email protected] Lyall [email protected] Foundation of Arizona3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235Phoenix, AZ 85014Telephone: (602) 650-1854Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

Anne Lai ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected] E. Peltason, Suite 3500Irvine, CA 92697-8000Telephone: (949) 824-9894Facsimile: (949) 824-0066

Cecillia Wang ( Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] FoundationImmigrants’ Rights Project 39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 343-0775

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

Andre Segura ( Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] FoundationImmigrants’ Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004Telephone: (212) 549-2676



3/90

iii


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

Nancy Ramirez ( Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] American Legal Defense andEducational Fund

634 South Spring Street, 11th FloorLos Angeles, California 90014Telephone: (213) 629-2512Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Additional Attorneys for Defendants:

Thomas P. LiddyAnn UgliettaMARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Civil Services Division

222 N. Central, Suite 1100Phoenix, Arizona 85004Telephone: (602) 372-2098Facsimile: (602) [email protected]@mcao.mariocopa.gov


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/90

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to the Court’s Order at the June 14, 2013 hearing in the above captioned

matter, Plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, David

Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr. and Somos America/We Are America

(“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Joseph Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office

(MCSO) (“Defendants”), hereby submit this joint memorandum reporting on the status

of their discussions regarding proposed terms for a final decree on remedies.

I. Status of Negotiations

Since June, the parties have engaged in good faith discussions and have been able

to reach agreement on a substantial number of terms. The parties continue to disagree on

a number of other terms.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a proposed Order which sets forth the terms on

which the parties have been able to agree, as well as those terms on which the parties

have not yet reached agreement. The text in black is the text upon which the parties

agree. The text in red is Plaintiffs’ proposed language, to which Defendants do not

consent. The text in blue is Defendants’ proposed language, to which Plaintiffs do not

consent. Where Plaintiffs and Defendants have competing proposals, the Plaintiffs’

proposal is in red and Defendants’ proposal is in blue.

As can be seen in Exhibit A, the parties substantially agree on some areas, though

they may disagree on specific details. For other areas, however, the parties have

significant differences. The parties will provide the Court with an update on or before

August 28 if they are able to reach further agreement on the disputed terms. However, at

this time, they believe that there is a significantly likelihood that the Court will need to

provide guidance in certain areas, as set forth below.

II. Parties’ Positions Regarding Significant Disputed Terms

Topic 1: Term of the Order - ¶¶ 4-5

Plaintiffs propose that if, after 5 years, the point at which it is expected that

Defendants will have reached Full and Effective Compliance, the parties can agree that



5/90

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Defendants have achieved Full and Effective Compliance and have maintained that

Compliance for three continuous years, the parties may jointly seek to terminate this

Order. If the parties disagree, either party may individually seek to terminate the Order

with the Court. Plaintiffs are agreeable to provisions allowing Defendants to seek partial

relief from the Order prior to the five year term, but only if a showing of Full and

Effective Compliance for three continuous years is made.

Defendants propose that the term length of the Order be three (3) years in length.

They also propose the Order contain an incentive provision whereby Defendants

maintain the right to move the Court to terminate the Order at any time before the

expiration of the three year time period if they prove to the Court Full and Effective

Compliance with the terms of the Order.

Topic 2: Investigation and Questioning of Passengers - ¶ 25h

Plaintiffs propose that the Deputies be prohibited from requesting the

identification of passengers, or from questioning, searching or investigating passengers,

in the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the passenger

has committed or is committing a traffic violation or a crime, in which case questioning

shall be limited to the violation being investigated.

Defendants oppose this proposal because it limits constitutionally permissible law

enforcement activity.

Topic 3: Training - Section VI

Plaintiffs propose that the MCSO be required to provide all sworn Deputies,

including Supervisors and chiefs, as well as all posse members, with 12 hours of training

on bias free policing, including cultural awareness, and 8 hours of training on Fourth

Amendment issues. Plaintiffs further propose that MCSO shall provide Supervisors with

no less than 8 hours of training on supervision strategies and supervisory responsibilities

Finally, Plaintiffs propose that personnel conducting misconduct investigations, whether



6/90

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

assigned to Internal Affairs (IA) or elsewhere, receive at least 8 hours of training with

respect to those duties. Training shall be at least 60% live and no more than 40% on-line

Defendants do not oppose additional deputy training. They, however, do oppose

plaintiffs’ volume of deputy training in terms of: (1) the number of hours; and (2) the

hourly percentage allocation between live versus on-line training. They do not oppose

supervisory training, but oppose the number of hours and allocation between live versus

on-line training. Defendants oppose IA training because it is beyond the scope of this

litigation’s facts and law, and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Defendants propose eight hours of deputy training and four hours of supervisory

training as follows: (1) four (4) hours of bias-free/Fourteenth Amendment policing

training for deputies with elements of Plaintiffs’ proposed “cultural awareness” training

being included in this training; (2) four (4) hours of Fourth Amendment policing training

for deputies; (3) four (4) hours of supervision training in addition to the aforementioned

additional eight hours of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment training; and (4) training

that is 40% live training and 60% on-line training.

Topic 4: Traffic Stop Data Collection: ¶ 58

Plaintiffs propose that data collection include, among other items that the Parties

have agreed upon, (1) a general and subjective description of the vehicle’s overall

appearance as to its condition; (2) a deputy’s subjective perceived race, ethnicity and

gender of the driver and any passengers, based on the officer’s subjective impression (no

inquiry is required or permitted); (3) instances in which an individual in a vehicle makes

incriminating statements regarding immigration status or an immigration-related crime

in response to questioning by a deputy; and (4) the rate at which contraband or evidence

is found after a search or pat-down frisk is conducted on a traffic stop.

Defendants oppose: (1) documenting a vehicle’s subjective overall appearance or

condition; (2) requiring deputies to consciously and subjectively guess as to the race of a

driver or passenger and instead propose a surname analysis; (3) documenting



7/90

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

incriminating statements and found contraband as beyond the scope of this litigation’s

facts and law, and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Topic 5: Patrol Car Video Recording Systems: ¶ 64

Plaintiffs propose that MCSO be required to make good-faith and steady efforts to

install functional video and audio recording equipment in all traffic patrol vehicles that

make traffic stops. In the event that the MCSO encounters significant budgetary

constraints such that it is not feasible for the MCSO to meet the two-year deadline for

installation of video and audio recording equipment, the MCSO may move the Court for

relief.

Defendants agree with the desire to have patrol car video recording systems.

They, however, need protection under the Order based on budgetary constraints are

beyond their control. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors sets the budget for the

MCSO and makes funding decisions for the MCSO.

Topic 6: Supervisors’ Close Supervision of Deputies: ¶¶ 77-78

Plaintiffs propose that first-line field supervisors shall be required to discuss the

stops made by deputies they supervise no less than once a week in order to ensure

compliance with the Court’s orders and MCSO policy. Plaintiffs propose that

supervisors not be assigned to supervise more than eight deputies at a time.

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ effort to set the frequency of super visor-deputy

discussions, and submit that the frequency of such communications should be left to the

field supervisors. Defendants propose that each supervisor be allowed to supervise no

more than twelve (12) deputies given manpower and budgetary issues.

Topic 7: Data in the Early Identification System: ¶86

The parties agree that there shall be an Early Identification System (EIS) and that

the EIS shall include a computerized relational database, which shall be used to collect,

maintain, integrate, and retrieve certain data.



8/90

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs propose that the data collected, maintained, integrated, and retrieved by

EIS cover all types of officer conduct that may help to flag problematic behavior. In

addition to the agreed upon areas, Plaintiffs propose that EIS capture (1) arrests in which

the individual was released from custody without formal charges being sought; (2) uses

of force, including firearm discharges, both on duty and off duty; (3) vehicle pursuits and

traffic collisions involving MCSO equipment; (4) contacts that result in a citation,

charges, or arrest for obstructing or resisting an officer, interfering with a law

enforcement investigation, or similar charges; (5) interviews or questioning determined

by a supervisor to have been conducted in violation of MCSO policy; (6) instances in

which MCSO is informed by a prosecuting authority or a court of a decision to decline

prosecution or to dismiss charges; (7) Training history for each employee; and (8) any

other variables that the Monitor, in consultation with the Parties, determines would assist

in the identification of and response to potentially problematic behaviors.

Defendants oppose the collection of the additional data because it is beyond the

scope of this litigation’s facts and law, and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law.

Topic 8: Hiring, Promotion, Assignment and Performance Assessment: ¶¶ 104-

105

Plaintiffs propose that the MCSO incorporate concrete requirements regarding the

areas covered by the Court’s orders in its hiring, promotion, and performance assessment

policies and processes and that MCSO develop and implement eligibility criteria for

assignment to any specialized units enforcing immigration-related laws.

Defendants oppose the propose terms for this section because it is beyond the


of Law.



9/90

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Topic 9: Misconduct Investigation and Discipline - Section VIII

Plaintiffs propose that Court’s remedy address misconduct investigations,

including public outreach about how to file a complaint against an officer, as well as

officer discipline, as set forth in section VII of the attached Exhibit A.



of Law.

Topic 10: Community Engagement - ¶¶ 29, 40, 171 and Section IX

Plaintiffs propose that the Court’s remedy address MCSO’s relationship with the

community, including the Latino community, and seek to improve that relationship by

requiring the establishment of a community advisory board, creation of a community

liaison officer and holding of community outreach meetings in Districts affected by

MCSO activities such as saturation patrols, as set forth in Paragraph 29 and Section VIII

of the attached Exhibit A. Plaintiffs also propose that the MCSO develop a plan to

ensure that essential police services are provided to all residents of Maricopa County,

including members of the Plaintiff class, as set forth in Paragraph 17 of the attached

Exhibit A. Finally, Plaintiffs propose that part of the Monitor’s responsibilities include

conducting a community survey to include all major demographic categories represented

in Maricopa County, as set forth in Paragraph 160 of the attached Exhibit A



of Law.

Topic 11: Role of the Monitor - Section X; in passim

Plaintiffs propose that the Court appoint an Independent Monitor to facilitate

implementation and accountability. Plaintiffs detailed proposal with respect to the

Monitor is set forth in section X of Exhibit A. Plaintiffs have laid out the proposed

responsibilities and authority conferred by the Court and the Order at Paragraph 159.



10/90

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Defendants oppose the appointment of a monitor. If the Court were to appoint a

monitor, the role and authority of such monitor must be reconciled so that the monitor’s

role does not supplant the elected Sheriff’s authority under the Arizona Constitution and

Arizona statute. Therefore, if the Court were to appoint a monitor, the role and authority

of such monitor should be based on the terms proposed by the Defendants. Defendants

also oppose certain terms of the monitor’s role as beyond the scope of this litigation’s

facts and law, and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Topic 12: Monitoring and Enforcement Fees for Plaintiff s’ Counsel: ¶180

Plaintiffs propose that Defendants pay Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable fees and

costs incurred in connection with monitoring or enforcement of the Court’s orders,

including for any litigation Plaintiffs must initiate to secure enforcement, if Plaintiffs

should prevail.

Defendants oppose such an effort. In addition, Plaintiffs should bear their own

expense in whatever enforcement action it decides to bring in the future during the life of

this Order, if any. Whether an award of fees and costs for bringing such enforcement

action should be determined following a Court ruling on any potential enforcement

action.

III. Supplemental Briefing

The parties believe that supplemental briefing on the issues that remain in dispute

would be of assistance to the Court. To that end, the parties propose to submit

simultaneous briefing on August 23, 2013. Such briefing will include a discussion of the

basis for the parties’ positions and any additional factual information that the parties are

prepared to provide the Court through witness declarations or in-person testimony. The

parties propose that the submissions should be no longer than 25 pages, not including

exhibits.



11/90

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

IV. Evidentiary Hearing

At the June 14, 2013 hearing, the Court also asked the parties to address the need

for an evidentiary hearing to address any areas in which the parties have not been able to

reach agreement. As outlined above, the parties propose to submit briefing, which will

include a discussion of the additional factual information that the parties are prepared to

provide the court through witness declaration or in-person testimony. The parties agree

they should have the right to cross-examine any witness offering additional evidence.

However, they defer to the Court as to whether further testimony is necessary. Should

the Court find an evidentiary hearing would be useful after reviewing the written

submissions, the parties are prepared to proceed with such a hearing.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2013

COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTHCASEY & EVEN, P.C

/s/_ Lesli Gallagher __________________ /s/ Timothy J. Casey _______________Stanley Young Timothy J. CaseyLesli Gallagher James L. Williams

On behalf of MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S Attorneys for Plaintiffs OFFICE

Thomas P. Liddy

Attorneys for Defendants



12/90

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on August 16, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Joint Report

was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail as indicated on the Notice of

Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System.

/s/ Lesli Gallagher



13/90

COLOR-CODED KEY TO AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

Plaintiffs’ proposed language; Defendants do not agree

Defendants’ proposed language; Plaintiffs do not agree

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et.al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER

PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER

The Sheriff of Maricopa County (the “Sheriff”), the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

(“MCSO” or “Sheriff’s Office”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), Manuel De Jesus Ortega

Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr. and

Somos America, on behalf of themselves and the class of Latino persons who since January 2007

have been or will be in the future stopped, detained, questioned, or searched by MCSO agents

while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa County,

Arizona (the “Plaintiffs”) (collectively “the Parties”) hereby propose, the following measures to

ensure compliance with the Court’s permanent injunction dated May 24, 2013 (the “Order” or

“Decree”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS on December 12, 2007 Plaintiff Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres

commenced a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against

the Defendants;

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 592-1 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 78


14/90




2

WHEREAS on September 5, 2008 the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the

Defendants in the aforementioned civil action Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., v.

Joseph M Arpaio, et al., No. CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS;

WHEREAS the case is currently before United States District Court Judge G. Murray

Snow (“District Court”);

WHEREAS the Complaint alleged that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ rights

under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Plaintiffs’

rights under Arizona Constitution Article II, Section 8, and violated the Plaintiffs’ right to be free

of racial discrimination pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

WHEREAS the District Court issued an order on December 22, 2011 granting partial

summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their claims under the Fourth Amendment to the United

States Constitution and Article II, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution; granted partial

injunction prohibiting the MCSO from detaining any person based only on knowledge or

reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, which

was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on appeal on September

25, 2012; granted class certification; granted sanctions motion and adverse inferences; denied in

part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; and denied in part Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment;

WHEREAS the District Court conducted a seven-day bench trial, which concluded on

August 2, 2012;

WHEREAS, on May 24, 2013, the District Court issued Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law and found that MCSO’s past and continuing operations at issue in this case



15/90




3

violated the Plaintiff class’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

WHEREAS the Court, in its May 24, 2013 decision, permanently enjoined Defendants

from:

(1) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles based on a reasonable

belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization;

(2) following or enforcing its “LEAR” policy against any Latino occupant of a vehicle in

Maricopa County;

(3) using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to stop any vehicle;

(4) using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decisions with

respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle may be in the country without authorization;

(5) detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period

longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable

suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state

criminal law;

(6) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle for violations of the

Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that the necessary

elements of the crime are present; and

(7) detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are

conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.

WHEREAS the District Court identified the need to enter further orders to effectuate and

ensure compliance with its injunctions, and informed the Parties that it would entertain any

proposals that are mutually acceptable to the Parties;



16/90




4

WHEREAS the Parties have developed the following provisions with the goal of

ensuring that Defendants’ services are delivered to the people of Maricopa County in a manner

that complies with the Constitution and the law of the United States. The full and sustained

implementation of this Order is intended to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the

community, improve the safety and security of the people of Maricopa County, and increase the

public confidence in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby AGREE and the Court expressly ORDERS,

ADJUDGES AND DECREES the following:

I.

DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS1. The following terms and definitions shall apply to this Order:

a. “Boilerplate” means language that is stock, formulaic, appears repeatedly in

different reports, and fails to attest to the unique facts of an incident;

b. “CAB” means the Community Advisory Board;

c. “CAD” means “Computer Aided Dispatch,” the electronic system that tracks

communications between MCSO deputies and dispatch while on patrol;

d. “CBP” means U.S. Customers and Border Protection;

e. “Complainant” means any person, including a member of the public, MCSO

deputy, detention officer, civilian employee or posse member, who makes a

complaint against MCSO;

f. “Complaint” means any allegation of improper conduct made by a member of the

public or MCSO personnel regarding MCSO services, policy or procedure, that

alleges dissatisfaction with or misconduct by MCSO personnel.

g. “Order” or “Decree” means this Order;

h. “County” means Maricopa County, including its agents and employees;



17/90




5

i. “Court” means the United States District Judge for the District of Arizona

presiding over this case;

j. “Defendants” means defendants in the above-captioned action, i.e., Joseph M.

Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, and the MCSO;

k. “Deputy” means any sworn law enforcement officer employed by or working for

MCSO, including Supervisors, patrol and reserve officers;

l. “Discipline” means a personnel action for violation of any law, regulation, rule, or

MCSO policy, including, but not limited to, an admonishment, written reprimand,

suspension, demotion or termination;

m. “Discriminatory Policing” means selective enforcement or non-enforcement of

the law, including the selecting or rejecting of particular policing tactics or

strategies, based on a person’s actual or perceived race or ethnicity.

Discriminatory policing does not include using a person’s race or ethnicity in any

reliable suspect-specific description or for purposes of data collection;

n.

“District” refers to one of the seven police service areas of MCSO;

o. “Effective Date” means the day this Order is entered by the Court;

p. “Exigent Circumstances” means emergencies in which a reasonable person would

believe that imminent death or bodily harm to a person or persons or the

destruction of evidence is likely or as otherwise defined by law;

q. “EIS” means Early Identification System;

r. “Full and Effective Compliance” in an area means sustained compliance with the

relevant provisions of this Order and sustained and continuing improvement in

constitutional policing as contemplated by this Order;



18/90




6

s. “IA” means Internal Affairs, the MCSO unit charged with conducting internal and

administrative investigations of MCSO deputies, agents, and employees;

t. “ICE” means U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

u. “Immigration-Related Law” means any civil or criminal offense related to

immigration status;

v. “Immigration-Related Crime” means any statute imposing criminal punishment in

which immigration status is an element of the offense;

w. “include” or “including” means “include or including, but not limited to”;

x.

“Investigatory Stop,” “Investigatory Contact,” or “Investigatory

Detention” means a detention short of an arrest in accordance with Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1 (1968)

y. “LEAR Policy,” means the MCSO policy described on page 2 and 113 of the

Court’s May 24, 2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of detaining

persons believed to be in the country without authorization but whom they cannot

arrest on state charges, in order to summon a supervisor and communicate with

federal authorities;

z. “MCSO” means the Sheriff of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office acting in her

or his official capacity, including the MCSO’s agents, deputies, detention officers,

Supervisors, employees (both sworn and unsworn), and posse volunteers;

aa. “MCSO Implementation Unit” means the unit created by the MCSO and

consisting to MCSO Employees to facilitate implementation of this Order;



19/90




7

bb. “MCSO Personnel” or “MCSO Employee” means all MCSO Employees,

contractors and volunteers, including command staff, deputies, detention officers,

civilian employees and posse volunteers;

cc. “MDT” means Mobile Data Terminal, the computerized system used in MCSO

vehicles to conduct inquiries on individuals encountered on patrol;

dd. “Monitor” means a person or team of people who shall be selected to assess and

report on the Defendants’ implementation of this Order;

ee. “On-site Observation” means first-hand observation by the Monitor of MCSO

activities, e.g., ride-alongs with Deputies on patrol or attendance at MCSO

meetings or trainings;

ff. “Parties” means Plaintiffs and Defendants collectively in the above-captioned

action;

gg. “Patrol Operations” means all MCSO law enforcement operations conducted by

Deputies in a law enforcement support or patrol capacity which involve motor

vehicle traffic stops, including Significant Operations as defined below. Jail or

detention facility operations are not a part of Patrol Operations;

hh. “Plaintiffs” means Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action;

ii. “Policies and Procedures” means written regulations or directives, regardless of

the name of the regulation or directive, describing the duties, functions, and

obligations of MCSO personnel, and providing specific direction in how to fulfill

those duties, functions, or obligations. All Policies and Procedures should be

available in hardcopy and electronically;

jj. “Sheriff” means the current and future Sheriffs of MCSO;



20/90




8

kk. “Significant Operation” or “Significant Patrol” means any pre-planned Patrol

Operation that will involve traffic stops of vehicles within Maricopa County

involving 10 or more MCSO Personnel excluding posse members. This does not

include holiday season DUI patrols, mall patrols, lake patrols, or river patrols;

ll. “Specialized Unit” means a temporary or permanent organization of deputies

within MCSO whose operational objectives are focused on a specific law

enforcement purpose beyond general patrol or criminal investigations;

mm. “Supervisor” means a sworn MCSO employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or

anyone acting in those capacities) with oversight responsibility for MCSO

personnel;

nn. “Training” means MCSO instruction that aspires towards industry best practices

and include adult-learning methods that incorporate realistic role-playing

scenarios, interactive exercises, traditional lecture formats, and testing and/or

writings that indicate that MCSO personnel taking the Training comprehend the

material taught;

oo. “Vehicle stop” means any instance where a MCSO Deputy directs a civilian

operating a motor vehicle of any type to stop and the driver and any passengers

are detained for any length of time.

II. EFFECTIVE DATE, JURISDICTION AND PARTY REPRESENTATIVES

2. This Order shall become effective upon entry by the Court.

3. To ensure that the requirements of this Order are properly and timely implemented, the

Court will retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes until such time as the Defendants

have achieved Full and Effective Compliance and maintained such compliance for no less than

three years.



21/90




9

4. The Parties anticipate that Defendants will have reached Full and Effective Compliance

with all terms of this Order within five three years of the Effective Date. As such, after five

three years from the Effective Date of this Order, the Parties may agree to jointly ask the Court

to terminate this Order if the parties agree that Defendants have achieved Full and Effective

Compliance and maintained such compliance for no less than three continuous years. If after

five years three years from the Effective Date the Parties disagree whether Defendants have

achieved Full and Effective Compliance, either Party may seek to terminate this Order. If

Defendants move to terminate, Defendants must provide the Monitor and Plaintiffs with notice

that they intend to do so at least 60 days prior to filing a motion to terminate. The Parties shall

confer with each other and the Monitor to see if any disagreements can be resolved before

Defendants file their motion with the Court. If, after a reasonable period of consultation and the

completion of any audit or evaluation that Plaintiffs and/or the Monitor may wish to undertake,

including On-Site Observations, document review, or interviews with the Defendants’ personnel,

the Parties cannot resolve any compliance issues, the Defendants may file a motion to terminate

this Order. If the Defendants move for termination of this Order, Plaintiffs will have 60 days 30

days after the receipt of the Defendants’ motion to object to the motion. If Plaintiffs do not

object, the Court may shall grant the Defendants’ motion. If Plaintiffs do make an objection, the

Court shall hold a hearing on the motion.

5. If Defendants believe that Full and Effective Compliance with all terms of this Order has

been achieved and maintained for no less than three continuous years at any time before

expiration of the five three years of the Effective Date, the Defendants shall have the right to

move the Court to terminate this Order upon appropriate showing to the Court of such Full and

Effective Compliance. Defendants shall also have the right to move to terminate any part,



22/90




10

portion, or term of this Order before the expiration of the three years of the effective date if they

believe that they have achieved Full and Effective compliance with such portion, part, or term of

this Order and have maintained such compliance for no less than three continuous years. At least

60 days prior to filing a motion to terminate, Defendants must provide the Monitor and Plaintiffs

with notice that they intend to do so. The Parties shall confer with each other and the Monitor to

see if any disagreements can be resolved before Defendants file their motion with the Court. If,

after a reasonable period of consultation and the completion of any audit or evaluation that

Plaintiffs and/or the Monitor may wish to undertake, including On-Site Observations, document

review, or interviews with the Defendants’ personnel, the Parties cannot resolve any compliance

issues, the Defendants may file a motion to terminate this Order. Plaintiffs shall have the right to

oppose such motion within 60 days 30 days after receipt of the Defendants’ motion. If Plaintiffs

do not object, the Court may shall grant the Defendants’ motion. If Plaintiffs do make an

objection, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion.

6. At all times, the Defendants shall bear the burden of demonstrating Full and Effective

Compliance with this Order.

7. This Order shall run against the Sheriff in his official capacity, as well as the MCSO. For

purposes of implementation and enforcement of the Order, the representatives for the Parties

shall be:

a. Plaintiffs: The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona (“ACLU-AZ”) and anyother representative(s) designated by the ACLU-AZ

b.

Defendants: Chief David Trombi and Captain Larry Farnsworth (or other designeeselected by the Sheriff)



23/90




11

III. MCSO IMPLEMENTATION UNIT AND INTERNAL AGENCY-WIDE

ASSESSMENT

8. Defendants shall hire and retain, or reassign current MCSO Employees to form an inter-

disciplinary unit with the skills and abilities necessary to facilitate implementation of this Order.

This unit shall be called the MCSO Implementation Unit and serve as a liaison between the

Parties and the Monitor and shall assist with the Defendants’ implementation of and compliance

with this Order. At a minimum, this unit shall: coordinate the Defendants’ compliance and

implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents, materials, and access to the

Defendants’ personnel to the Monitor and Plaintiffs representatives; ensure that all data,

documents and records are maintained as provided in this Order; and assist in assigning

implementation and compliance-related tasks to MCSO Personnel, as directed by the Sheriff or

his designee. The unit will include a single person to serve as a point of contact in

communications with Plaintiffs, the Monitor and the Court.

9. MCSO shall collect and maintain all data and records necessary to: (1) document

implementation of and compliance with this Order, including data and records necessary for the

Monitor to conduct reliable outcome assessments, compliance reviews, and audits; and (2)

perform ongoing quality assurance in each of the areas addressed by this Order. At a minimum,

the foregoing data collection practices shall comport with current professional standards, with

input on those standards from the Monitor.

10. Beginning with the Monitor’s first quarterly report, the Defendants, working with the unit

assigned for implementation of the Order, shall file with the Court, with a copy to the Monitor

and Plaintiffs, a status report no later than 30 days before the Monitor’s quarter ly report is due.

The Defendants’ report shall (i) delineate the steps taken by the Defendants during the reporting



24/90




12

period to implement this Order; (ii) delineate the Defendants’ plans to correct any problems; and

(iii) include responses to any concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous quarterly report.

11. The Defendants, working with the unit assigned for implementation of the Order, shall

conduct a comprehensive internal assessment of their Policies and Procedures affecting Patrol

Operations regarding Discriminatory Policing and unlawful detentions in the field as well as

overall compliance with the Court’s orders and the decree on an annual basis. The

comprehensive Patrol Operations assessment shall include, but not be limited to, an analysis of

collected traffic-stop and high-profile or immigration-related operations data; written Policies

and Procedures; Training, as set forth in the decree; compliance with Policies and Procedures;

Supervisor review; intake and investigation of civilian Complaints; conduct of internal

investigations; Discipline of officers; and community relations. The first assessment shall be

conducted within 180 days of the effective date of the decree. Results of each assessment shall

be provided to the Monitor and Plaintiffs’ representatives.

IV. MONITOR REVIEW PROCESS

12.

In any place where this Order provides for Defendants to submit policies, procedures,

protocols or other materials to the Monitor for his or her review, Defendants shall submit such

materials to the Monitor and provide a copy to Plaintiffs’ representatives within the specified

time.

13. Plaintiffs shall have an opportunity to provide any comments or recommendations on the

materials within 14 days of receipt. The Monitor shall thereafter communicate to the Parties the

results of its review. If the Monitor has any concerns or recommendations regarding the

materials, it will include those concerns or recommendations. The MCSO may then amend the

materials and resubmit them to the Monitor within 14 days for further review. Either Party may

apply to the Monitor or to the Court for an extension of the deadlines in this paragraph. In



25/90




13

conducting its review, the Monitor may take into account industry best practices and the record

in this litigation.

14. If the Monitor and the Parties are able to reach consensus on the materials, then no

further action is needed before the MCSO implements the relevant policies, procedures,

protocols or materials. The MCSO shall do so promptly and without delay.

15. If either Party does not agree with the Monitor’s view, then the Party may make a motion

directly to the Court for resolution of the dispute. The non-moving Party may respond to such

motion within 14 days of filing. The moving Party may file a reply within 7 days after that. Any

policies, procedures, protocols or other materials subject to the dispute need not be implemented

until the Court makes a determination.

16. In any place where this Order provides for Monitor review, Defendants shall submit the

relevant materials to the Monitor and Plaintiffs within the specified time. Plaintiffs shall have an

opportunity to provide any input on the materials for consideration by the Monitor. The MCSO

shall also have an opportunity to address any outstanding concerns identified by the Monitor or

Plaintiffs and to provide the Monitor with amended materials. The Monitor shall thereafter make

a recommendation to the Court as to whether or not to approve the materials, and the Court will

make a determination after hearing from the Parties. In making its recommendations, the

Monitor may take into account industry professional standards.

V. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO ENSURE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING

17. MCSO shall deliver police services consistent with the Constitution and laws of the

United States and State of Arizona, MCSO policy, and this Order, and with current professional

standards. In conducting its activities, MCSO shall ensure that members of the public receive

equal protection of the law, without discriminating based on actual or perceived race or ethnicity,

and in a manner that promotes public confidence.



26/90




14

18. To further the goals in this Order, the MCSO shall conduct a comprehensive review of all

Patrol Operations Policies and Procedures and make appropriate amendments to ensure that they

reflect the Court’s permanent injunction and this Order.

19. The MCSO shall comply with and operate in accordance with the Policies and

Procedures discussed in this Order and shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that all Patrol

Operations personnel comply with all such Policies and Procedures.

a. Policies and Procedures to Ensure Bias-Free Policing

20. The MCSO shall promulgate a new, department-wide policy or policies clearly

prohibiting Discriminatory Policing and racial profiling. The policy or policies shall, at a

minimum:

a. define racial profiling as the reliance on race or ethnicity to any degree in making law

enforcement decisions, except in connection with a reliable and specific suspect

description;

b. prohibit the selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the law based on race or

ethnicity;

c. prohibit the selection or rejection of particular policing tactics or strategies or locations

based to any degree on race or ethnicity;

d. specify that the presence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe an

individual has violated a law does not necessarily mean that an officer’s action is race-

neutral; and

e. include a description of the agency’s Training requirements on the topic of racial

profiling, data collection requirements (including video and audio recording of stops as

set forth elsewhere in this Order) and oversight mechanisms to detect and prevent racial

profiling, including disciplinary consequences for officers who engage in racial profiling.



27/90




15

21. MCSO leadership and supervising Deputies and detention officers shall unequivocally

and consistently reinforce to subordinates that Discriminatory Policing is unacceptable.

22. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, MCSO shall modify its Code of Conduct to

prohibit MCSO Employees from utilizing County property, such as County e-mail, in a manner

that discriminates against, or denigrates, anyone on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

23. MCSO Personnel who engage in Discriminatory Policing will be subjected to

administrative Discipline and, where appropriate, referred for criminal prosecution. MCSO shall

provide clear guidelines, in writing, regarding the disciplinary consequences for personnel who

engage in Discriminatory Policing.

24. The MCSO shall ensure that its operations are not motivated by or initiated in response to

requests for law enforcement action based on race or ethnicity. In deciding to take any law

enforcement action, the MCSO shall not rely on any information received from the public,

including through any hotline, by mail, email, phone or in person, unless the information is

credible and contains evidence of a crime that is independently corroborated by the MCSO, such

independent corroboration is documented in writing, and reliance on the information is

consistent with all MCSO policies.

b. Policies and Procedures to Ensure Bias-Free Traffic Enforcement

25. The MCSO will revise its policy or policies relating to traffic enforcement to ensure that

those policies, at a minimum:

a. prohibit racial profiling in the enforcement of traffic laws, including the selection of

which vehicles to stop based to any degree on race or ethnicity, even where an officer has

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a violation is being or has been

committed;



28/90




16

b. provide Deputies with guidance on effective traffic enforcement, including the

prioritization of traffic enforcement resources to promote public safety;

c. prohibit the selection of particular communities, locations or geographic areas for

targeted traffic enforcement based to any degree on the racial or ethnic composition of

the community;

d. prohibit the selection of which motor vehicle occupants to question or investigate based

to any degree on race or ethnicity;

e. prohibit the use of particular tactics or procedures on a traffic stop based on race or

ethnicity;

f. require Deputies to provide motorists with their name and the reason for a stop during

every traffic stop, even if it does not result in a citation or arrest ;

g. prohibit Deputies from extending the duration of any traffic stop longer than the time that

is necessary to address the original purpose for the stop and/or to resolve any apparent

criminal violation for which the Deputy has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to

believe has been committed or is being committed;

h. prohibit Deputies from requesting the identification of passengers, or from questioning,

searching or investigating passengers, in the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable

cause to believe that the passenger has committed or is committing a traffic violation or a

crime (questioning shall be limited to the violation being investigated);

i. provide Deputies with a list and/or description of forms of identification deemed

acceptable for drivers and passengers (in circumstances where identification is required

of them) who are unable to present a driver’s license or other state-issued identification;

and



29/90




17

j. instruct Deputies that they are not to ask for the Social Security number or card of any

motorist who has provided a valid form of identification, unless it is needed to complete a

citation or report. In such cases, Deputies shall advise the motorist whether the

disclosure of the Social Security number or card is mandatory or voluntary.

c. Policies and Procedures to Ensure Bias-Free Detentions and Arrests

26. The MCSO shall revise its policy or policies relating to Investigatory Detentions and

arrests to ensure that those policies, at a minimum:

a. require that Deputies have reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged in, has

committed, or is about to commit, a crime before initiating an investigatory seizure;

b. require that Deputies have probable cause to believe that a person is engaged in, has

committed, or is about to commit, a crime before initiating an arrest;

c. provide Deputies with guidance on factors to be considered in deciding whether to cite

and release an individual for a criminal violation or whether to make an arrest;

d. require Deputies to notify Supervisors before effectuating an arrest following any

immigration-related investigation or for an Immigration-Related Crime, or for any crime

related to lack of an identity document;

e. prohibit the use of a person’s race or ethnicity as a factor in establishing reasonable

suspicion or probable cause to believe a person has, is or will commit a crime, except as

part of a reliable and specific suspect description;

f. prohibit the use of quotas, whether formal or informal, for stops, citations, detentions or

arrests (though this requirement shall not be construed to prohibit the MCSO from

reviewing Deputy activity for the purpose of assessing a Deputy’s overall effectiveness or

whether the Deputy may be engaging in unconstitutional policing); and



30/90




18

g. require officers to follow proper and timely consular notification procedures, in

accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and guidance by the U.S.

Department of State, following the arrest of an individual who is a foreign national.

d. Policies and Procedures Governing the Enforcement of Immigration-Related

Laws

27. The MCSO shall remove discussion of its LEAR Policy from all agency written Policies

and Procedures, except that the agency may mention the LEAR Policy in order to clarify that it is

discontinued.

28. The MCSO shall promulgate a new policy or policies, or will revise its existing policy or

policies, relating to the enforcement of Immigration-Related Laws to ensure that they, at a

minimum:

a. specify that unauthorized presence in the United States is not a crime and does not

itself constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a person has

committed or is committing any crime;

b. prohibit officers from detaining any individual based on actual or suspected

“unlawful presence,” without something more;

c. prohibit officers from initiating a pretextual vehicle stop where an officer has

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a traffic or equipment violation has

been or is being committed in order to determine whether the driver or passengers are

unlawfully present;

d.

prohibit Deputies from initiating a pretextual stop of a suspected load vehicle,

even where the Deputy has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a traffic

or equipment violation has been or is being committed, absent a race-neutral indicator

that the vehicle is involved in human smuggling in violation of Arizona law;



31/90




19

e. prohibit the Deputies from relying on race or apparent Latino ancestry to any

degree to select whom to stop or to investigate for an Immigration-Related Crime (except

in connection with a reliable, specific suspect description);

f. prohibit Deputies from relying on a suspect’s speaking Spanish, or speaking

English with an accent, or appearance as a day laborer as a factor in developing

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a person has committed or is

committing any crime, or reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is in the

country unlawfully;

g.

unless the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country

unlawfully and probable cause to believe the individual has committed or is committing a

crime, the MCSO shall prohibit officers from (a) questioning any individual as to his/her

alienage or immigration status; (b) investigating an individual’s identity or searching the

individual in order to develop evidence of unlawful status; or (c) detaining an individual

while contacting ICE/CBP with an inquiry about immigration status or awaiting a

response from ICE/CBP. In such cases, the officer must still comply with Paragraph

18(g) of this Order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an officer may (a) briefly question an

individual as to his/her alienage or immigration status; (b) contact ICE/CBP and await a

response from federal authorities if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the

person is in the country unlawfully and reasonable suspicion to believe the person is

engaged in an Immigration-Related Crime for which unlawful immigration status is an

element, so long as doing so does not unreasonably extend the stop in violation of

Paragraph 18(g) of this Order;



32/90




20

h. prohibit Deputies from transporting or delivering an individual to ICE/CBP

custody from a traffic stop without an ICE hold unless a request to do so has been

voluntarily made by the individual.

i. require that, before any questioning as to alienage or immigration status or any

contact with ICE/CBP is initiated, an officer check with a Supervisor to ensure that the

circumstances justify such an action under MCSO policy and receive approval to

proceed. Officers must also document, in every such case, (a) the reason(s) for making

the immigration-status inquiry or contacting ICE/CBP, (b) the time Supervisor approval

was received; (c) when ICE/CBP was contacted, (d) the time it took to receive a response

from ICE/CBP, if applicable, and (e) whether the individual was then transferred to

ICE/CBP custody.

29. MCSO shall develop a plan and policy to provide individuals residing in Maricopa

County essential police services regardless of immigration status. Such policy shall include the

provision of police services to crime victims and witnesses regardless of whether such

individuals are able to provide acceptable ID or evidence of lawful status.

e. Policies and Procedures Generally

30. MCSO Policies and Procedures shall define terms clearly, comply with applicable law

and the requirements of this Order, and comport with current professional standards.

31. Unless otherwise noted, the MCSO shall submit all Policies and Procedures and

amendments to Policies and Procedures provided for by this Order to the Monitor for review

within 90 days of the Effective Date pursuant to the process described in Section IV.

32. Within 60 days after issuing any Policy or Procedure provided for by this Order, MCSO

shall ensure that all relevant MCSO Patrol Operation Personnel have received, read, and

understand their responsibilities pursuant to the Policy or Procedure. The MCSO shall ensure



33/90




21

that personnel continue to be regularly notified of any new Policies and Procedures or changes to

Policies and Procedures. The Monitor shall assess and report to the Court and the Parties on

whether he/she believes relevant personnel are provided sufficient notification of and access to,

and understand each policy or procedure as necessary to fulfill their responsibilities.

33. The MCSO shall require that all Patrol Operation personnel report violations of policy;

that Supervisors of all ranks shall be held accountable for identifying and responding to policy or

procedure violations by personnel under their command; and that personnel be held accountable

for policy and procedure violations. The MCSO shall apply policies uniformly.

34.

MCSO shall review each policy and procedure on an annual basis to ensure that the

policy or procedure provides effective direction to MCSO Personnel and remains consistent with

this Order, current law and professional standards. The MCSO shall document such annual

review in writing. MCSO also shall review Policies and Procedures as necessary upon notice of

a policy deficiency during audits or reviews. MCSO shall revise any deficient policy as soon as

practicable.

35.

Review by the Monitor pursuant to the process described in Section IV of any revision to

the Policies and Procedures provided for by this Order shall be required prior to implementation.

f. Oversight of Pre-Planned Operations Meeting Certain Criteria

36. The Monitor shall regularly review the mission statement, policies and operations

documents of any Specialized Unit within the MCSO that enforces Immigration-Related Laws to

ensure that such unit(s) is/are operating in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the

United States and State of Arizona and this Order.

37. The MCSO shall ensure that any Significant Operations or Patrols are initiated and

carried out in a race-neutral fashion. For any Significant Operations or Patrols involving 10 or

more MCSO personnel, excluding posse members, the MSCO shall develop a written protocol



34/90




22

including a statement of the operational motivations and objectives, parameters for supporting

documentation that shall be collected, a standard template for operations plans, and standard

instructions for supervisors, deputies and posse members.

38. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the MCSO shall submit its proposed protocol,

along with any draft templates and instructions, to the Monitor for review pursuant to the process

described in Section IV. Absent Exigent Circumstances, the MCSO may not conduct any

Significant Operations or Patrols until such protocol has been reviewed by the Monitor pursuant

to the process described in Section IV. Any Significant Operations or Patrols must be in

accordance with the protocol.

39. If the MCSO conducts any Significant Operations or Patrols involving 10 or more MCSO

Personnel excluding posse members, it shall create the following documentation and provide it to

the Monitor and Plaintiffs within 30 days after the operation:

a. documentation of the specific justification/reason for the operation, drafted prior

to the operation (this documentation must include analysis of relevant, reliable, and

comparative crime data);

b. information that triggered the operation and/or selection of the particular site for

the operation;

c. documentation of the steps taken to corroborate any information or intelligence

received from non-law enforcement personnel;

d. documentation of command staff review and approval of the operation and

operations plans;

e. a listing of specific operational objectives for the patrol;



35/90




23

f. documentation of specific operational objectives and instructions as

communicated to participating MCSO Personnel;

g. any operations plans, other instructions, guidance or post-operation feedback or

de-briefing provided to participating MCSO Personnel;

h. a post-operation analysis of the patrol, including a detailed report of any

significant events that occurred during the patrol;

i. arrest lists, officer participation logs and records for the patrol; and

j. data about each contact made during the operation, including whether it resulted

in a citation or arrest.

40. The MCSO shall hold a community outreach meeting no more than 30 days after any

Significant Operations or Patrols in the affected District(s). MCSO shall work with the

Community Advisory Board to ensure that the community outreach meeting adequately

communicates information regarding the objectives and results of the operation or patrol. The

community outreach meeting shall be advertised and conducted in English and Spanish.

41.

The MCSO shall notify the Monitor and Plaintiffs within 24 hours of any immigration-

related traffic enforcement activity or Significant Operation involving the arrest of 5 or more

people unless such disclosure would interfere with an on-going criminal investigation in which

case the notification shall be provided under seal to the Court, which may determine that

disclosure to the Monitor and Plaintiffs would not interfere with an on-going criminal

investigation. In any event, as soon as disclosure would no longer interfere with an on-going

criminal investigation, MCSO shall provide the notification to the Monitor and Plaintiffs. To the

extent that it is not already covered above by Paragraph __, the Monitor and Plaintiffs may



36/90




24

request any documentation related to such activity as they deem reasonably necessary to ensure

compliance with the Court’s orders.



37/90




25

VI. TRAINING

a. General Provisions

42. In order to ensure that the Policies and Procedures provided for by this Order are

effectuated, the MCSO shall implement the following requirements regarding Training.

43. The persons presenting this Training in each area shall be competent instructors with

significant experience and expertise in the area. Those presenting Training on legal matters shall

also hold a law degree from an accredited law school and be admitted to a Bar of any state and/or

the District of Columbia.

44. The Training shall include at least 60% 40% live training (i.e., with a live instructor)

which includes an interactive component and no more than 40% 60% on-line training. The

online training shall precede the live training and Deputies shall be provided with an opportunity

to ask questions during the live training. The Training shall also include testing and/or writings

that indicate that MCSO Personnel taking the Training comprehend the material taught whether

via live training or via on-line training.

45.

Within 90 days of the Effective Date, MCSO shall set out a schedule for delivering all

Training required by this Order. Plaintiffs’ Representative and the Monitor shall be provided

with the schedule of all Trainings and will be permitted to observe all live trainings and all on-

line training. Attendees shall sign in at each live session. MCSO shall keep an up-to-date list of

the live and on-line Training sessions and hours attended or viewed by each officer and

Supervisor and make that available to the Monitor and Plaintiffs.

46. The Training shall may incorporate adult-learning methods that incorporate role-playing

scenarios, interactive exercises, as well as traditional lecture formats.

47. The curriculum and any materials and information on the proposed instructors for the

Training provided for by this Order shall be provided to the Monitor within 90 days of the



38/90




26

Effective Date for review pursuant to the process described in Section IV. The Monitor and

Plaintiffs may provide resources that the MCSO can consult to develop the content of the

Training, including names of suggested instructors.

48. MCSO shall regularly update the Training to keep up with developments in the law and

to take into account feedback from the Monitor, the Court, Plaintiffs and MCSO Personnel.

b. Bias-Free Policing Training

49. The MCSO shall provide all sworn Deputies, including Supervisors and chiefs, as well as

all posse members, with 12 hours 4 hours of comprehensive and interdisciplinary Training on

bias-free policing within 240 days of the Effective Date, or for new Deputies or posse members,

within 90 days of the start of their service, and at least 8 hours 4 hours annually thereafter.

50. The Training shall incorporate the most current developments in federal and Arizona law

and MCSO policy, and shall address or include, at a minimum:

a. definitions of racial profiling and Discriminatory Policing;

b. examples of the type of conduct that would constitute Discriminatory Policing as well as

examples of the types of indicators Deputies may properly rely upon;

c. the protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as essential to

effective policing;

d. an emphasis on ethics, professionalism and the protection of civil rights as a central part

of the police mission and as essential to effective policing;

e. constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection, unlawful

discrimination, and restrictions on the enforcement of Immigration-Related Laws,

including the requirements of this Order;

f. MCSO policies related to Discriminatory Policing, the enforcement of Immigration-

Related Laws and traffic enforcement, and to the extent past instructions to personnel on



39/90




27

these topics were incorrect, a correction of any misconceptions about the law or MCSO

policies;

g. MCSO’s protocol and requirements for ensuring that any significant pre-planned

operations or patrols are initiated and carried out in a race-neutral fashion;

h. police and community perspectives related to Discriminatory Policing;

i. the existence of arbitrary classifications, stereotypes, and implicit bias, and the impact

that these may have on the decision-making and behavior of a Deputy;

j. methods and strategies for identifying stereotypes and implicit bias in Deputy decision-

making;

k. methods and strategies for ensuring effective policing, including reliance solely on non-

discriminatory factors at key decision points;

l. methods and strategies to reduce misunderstanding, resolve and/or de-escalate conflict,

and avoid Complaints due to perceived police bias or discrimination;

m. cultural awareness and how to communicate with individuals in commonly encountered

scenarios;

n. problem-oriented policing tactics and other methods for improving public safety and

crime prevention through community engagement; and

o. the benefits of actively engaging community organizations, including those serving youth

and immigrant communities;

p. the MCSO process for investigating Complaints of possible misconduct and the

disciplinary consequences for personnel found to have violated MCSO policy;

q. background information on the Melendres v. Arpaio litigation, as well as a summary and

explanation of the Court’s May 24, 2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in



40/90




28

Melendres v. Arpaio, the parameters of the Court’s permanent injunction and the

requirements of this Order; and

r. instruction on the data collection protocols and reporting requirements of this Order.

51. Portions of this Training pertaining to cultural awareness, community policing and

problem-oriented policing methods and skills shall be developed and delivered with the input

and participation of the Community Advisory Board.

c. Training on Detentions, Arrests and the Enforcement of Immigration-Related

Laws

52. In addition to the Training on bias-free policing and the cultural awareness and

community policing Training, the MCSO shall provide all sworn personnel, including

Supervisors and chiefs, as well as all posse members, with 8 hours 4 hours of Training on the

Fourth Amendment, including on detentions, arrests and the enforcement of Immigration-Related

Laws within 180 days of the effective date of this Order, or for new Deputies or posse members,

within 90 days of the start of their service. MCSO shall provide all Deputies with 4 hours of

Training each year thereafter.

53. The Training shall incorporate the most current developments in federal and Arizona law

and MCSO policy, and shall address or include, at a minimum:

a. an explanation of the difference between various police contacts according to the

level of police intrusion and the requisite level of suspicion; the difference between

reasonable suspicion and mere speculation; and the difference between voluntary

consent and mere acquiescence to police authority;

b. guidance on the facts and circumstances that should be considered in initiating,

expanding or terminating an Investigatory Stop or detention;



41/90




29

c. guidance on the circumstances under which an Investigatory Detention can

become an arrest requiring probable cause;

d. constitutional and other legal requirements related to stops, detentions and arrests,

and the enforcement of Immigration-Related Laws, including the requirements of this

Order;

e. MCSO policies related to stops, detentions and arrests, and the enforcement of

Immigration-Related Laws, and the extent to which past instructions to personnel on

these topics were incorrect, a correction of any misconceptions about the law or MCSO

policies;

f. the circumstances under which a passenger may be questioned or asked for

identification;

g. the forms of identification that will be deemed acceptable if a driver or passenger

(in circumstances where identification is required of them) is unable to present an

Arizona driver’s license;

h.

the circumstances under which an officer may initiate a vehicle stop in order to

investigate a load vehicle;

i. the circumstances under which a Deputy may question any individual as to his/her

alienage or immigration status, investigate an individual’s identity or search the

individual in order to develop evidence of unlawful status, contact ICE/CBP, await a

response from ICE/CBP and/or deliver an individual to ICE/CBP custody;

j. a discussion of the factors that may properly be considered in establishing

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a vehicle or an individual is

involved in an immigration-related state crime, such as a violation of the Arizona



42/90




30

Human Smuggling Statute, as drawn from legal precedent and updated as necessary; the

factors shall not include actual or apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, speaking

English with an accent, or appearance as a Hispanic day laborer;

k. a discussion of the factors that may properly be considered in establishing

reasonable suspicion or probable cause that an individual is in the country unlawfully, as

drawn from legal precedent and updated as necessary; the factors shall not include actual

or apparent race

Melendres 592 | Parties's Status of Negotiations re Consent Decree

Documents

Transcript of Melendres 592 | Parties's Status of Negotiations re Consent Decree